red oct 2 Posted January 22, 2005 Quote[/b] ]He claims he's going to. Sometime after we pull out I imagine... Just waiting when TBA goes after Iran or North Korea... i wouldn't get your hopes up on that happening anytime soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Haha, it was a ambush... (it was funny) She went off on a rant and Fox News was not trying to go political in that segment. I bet she is banned. Surely it was, and indeed funny. But by taking clear stances, and more or less being "Republican television", Fox news has already gone "political" by default. As long as they continue to spread biased, and IMHO completly idiotic trash, they will always be subject to debate. Wether they want it, or not. EDIT: Oh, and banning anyone from making statements/participating in interviews, well. That just furthers the point of Fox being an unreliable, biased and a really bad example for how to handle anything even remotley related to spreading news, and politics too for that matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sputnik monroe 102 Posted January 22, 2005 Lets give you the benifit of the doubt and say Fox is a 100% right biased news organization. Why are people more troubled by the existance of one right wing station but they are ok with all the rest being left wing? Personally I don't trust any of the news networks. They are all a bunch of fucking liars that just brain wash people. I my self watch MSNBC, FOX, BBC, some arab news digest that is shown on a station I got, a chinese one and a European one (The European and Arab ones on my satelite are collections of broadcast from various stations). I don't put any trust into any of them. I just watch to hear that something has happened, then I do my own research to see what really happened. If you think Al jazeria, BBC, CNN, Reuters, or any other news source is any better or honest than Fox I'm afraid you're a damned fool. None of them are telling you the truth. They all only tell you what they want you to believe. Sadly it seems all of you (left and right) have taken the bait and have been reeled in. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Oh, and banning anyone from making statements/participating in interviews, well. That just furthers the point of Fox being an unreliable, biased and a really bad example for how to handle anything even remotley related to spreading news, and politics too for that matter. They have a right to ban her because she was booked to talk about something else. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 22, 2005 Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Oh, and banning anyone from making statements/participating in interviews, well. That just furthers the point of Fox being an unreliable, biased and a really bad example for how to handle anything even remotley related to spreading news, and politics too for that matter. They have a right to ban her because she was booked to talk about something else. so when a 'liberal' news decides to not invite conservative speaker because of this kid of thing, it is ok, despite being 'unfair'? i think the lad made a good point. cut back on a few million and we could have sent more ammo, armor to troops. this is exactly what conservatives are saying; "more support for troops". but when that same reasoning is used against Bush, they cry foul. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Quote[/b] ]EDIT: Oh, and banning anyone from making statements/participating in interviews, well. That just furthers the point of Fox being an unreliable, biased and a really bad example for how to handle anything even remotley related to spreading news, and politics too for that matter. They have a right to ban her because she was booked to talk about something else. so when a 'liberal' news decides to not invite conservative speaker because of this kid of thing, it is ok, despite being 'unfair'? i think the lad made a good point. cut back on a few million and we could have sent more ammo, armor to troops. this is exactly what conservatives are saying; "more support for troops". but when that same reasoning is used against Bush, they cry foul. If a conservative speaker is booked to talk about something and then goes off-topic, kick them. That segment was not supposed to be political. It was not Bush's money or tax dollars but that of private donations (i.e. "big" business) which funded the inauguration ceremonies. However, security is not included. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Hi billybob2002 America last I looked has freedom of speach and freedom of the press if you do not like it go live in Iran. Regards Walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Hi billybob2002America last I looked has freedom of speach and freedom of the press if you do not like it go live in Iran. Regards Walker Last time I checked, it had limits.. I had no problems with her "speech" but it was the wrong SEGMENT to do that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 22, 2005 Quote[/b] ]Last time I checked, it had limits.. Only when it threatens the safety of others or is libelious. Not when it has to do with someone making a political statement a biased news organization is not prepared for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
booradley60 0 Posted January 22, 2005 It's not like she made the statements on the Capitol steps, she made it on a television network's time. While the discussion was intended for one point, she took the liberty of "hijacking" the airtime, which happens to be very expensive. I beleive she has the right to express her feelings, but she should try to show some tact and wait for the appropriate interview topic to come out and say the things she did, instead of using pricey network airtime to go off-topic. At least, that's what I think billybob is getting to... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 22, 2005 It's not like she made the statements on the Capitol steps, she made it on a television network's time. Â While the discussion was intended for one point, she took the liberty of "hijacking" the airtime, which happens to be very expensive. Â I beleive she has the right to express her feelings, but she should try to show some tact and wait for the appropriate interview topic to come out and say the things she did, instead of using pricey network airtime to go off-topic. Â At least, that's what I think billybob is getting to... We have a winner!!! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 23, 2005 If a conservative speaker is booked to talk about something and then goes off-topic, kick them. That segment was not supposed to be political. oh sure, and conservatives will NOT claim liberal bias is the one to blame? Quote[/b] ]It was not Bush's money or tax dollars but that of private donations (i.e. "big" business) which funded the inauguration ceremonies. However, security is not included. TINSTAAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch. why would big corporations make donations to fund the ceremonies? Special Interest Groups? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Quote[/b] ]TINSTAAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch.why would big corporations make donations to fund the ceremonies? Special Interest Groups? To get friendly with TBA. If you had the cash, you could of done the same thing. Both parties do it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Albert Schweitzer 10 Posted January 23, 2005 I guess that I am late ... again... but I take the risk since I believe this is one of the funniest I have seen so far... cant download but you can watch it Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EiZei 0 Posted January 23, 2005 I guess that I am late ... again... but I take the risk since I believe this is one of the funniest I have seen so far... cant download but you can watch it Avon already posted that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted January 23, 2005 Uber slow ADSL line, Albert? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GoOB 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Hi billybob2002America last I looked has freedom of speach and freedom of the press if you do not like it go live in Iran. Regards Walker Last time I checked, it had limits.. I had no problems with her "speech" but it was the wrong SEGMENT to do that. Wrong in what way? The segment was about the re-election festivities was it not? I think she stayed on-topic by critisizing the really ridiculously large party being thrown, and arguing that the money could have been wiser spent! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
walker 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Hi all She was asked to comment on the festivites and said that she thought they were inapropriatly expensive at a time of war and that the 40 million dollars would have been better spent on giving US soldiers additional armour on their vehicles. She contrasted the fact that at a time of war and national danger; festivities, historicly, have been reduced. During another inauguration the president decided to just have one reception with chicken salad and not spend on 6 or 7 lavish parties. She was commenting, as an expert, that festivities have to be in tune with the moment. The phrase "fidling while Rome burns" comes to my mind. She did precisely what she was there for. Also freedom of speach means means freedom of speach not freedom of speach if you have the dollars to pay for it; unless you think freedom of speach should be dictated by how much money you have. So I guess everyone will have to walk round with a mechanical gag and a slot to put in quarters so they can speak; according to some here. Another link to film http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/24912/ Kind Regards Walker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
theavonlady 2 Posted January 23, 2005 Another link to film http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/24912/ I agree with the lady on the right. No. No. That can be misconstrued. I agree with the lady on the left. Uh.................. wait. OK. Got it! I agree with the lady with the bad hair day. Ooooof! And my kids are very unhappy with tonight's leftover dinner - chicken salad! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baphomet 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Quote[/b] ]Another link to film ]http://www.milkandcookies.com/links/24912/ POONED! I love how that anchor just grasps frantically to put a positive spin on Bachrach's criticisms. Even if it was private donations, it was in my opinion a bit crass to have a huge bash like that while their soldiers abroad don't have the equipment to do their job effectively. Supporters of Bush play the "support the troops" card all the time. When it's used against them they have a fit. It's funny. Quote[/b] ]It's not like she made the statements on the Capitol steps, she made it on a television network's time. Â While the discussion was intended for one point, she took the liberty of "hijacking" the airtime, which happens to be very expensive. Â I beleive she has the right to express her feelings, but she should try to show some tact and wait for the appropriate interview topic to come out and say the things she did, instead of using pricey network airtime to go off-topic. Â At least, that's what I think billybob is getting to... That's a thin excuse, she wasn't explicitly asked to fawn over the inaugural festivities as far as I know. That's terrible, their precious oogling over presidential inauguration festivities was brought to a screaming halt. It's so distressing to see expensive air time covering something that important was disrupted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralphwiggum 6 Posted January 23, 2005 Quote[/b] ]TINSTAAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch.why would big corporations make donations to fund the ceremonies? Special Interest Groups? To get friendly with TBA. If you had the cash, you could of done the same thing. Both parties do it. but it's ok if cons do it but not for dems right? and why would tehy want to be 'friends'? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billybob2002 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Quote[/b] ]That's a thin excuse, she wasn't explicitly asked to fawn over the inaugural festivities as far as I know. That's terrible, their precious oogling over presidential inauguration festivities was brought to a screaming halt. It's so distressing to see expensive air time covering something that important was disrupted. All the news cable networks were acting in awe during the inauguration. Quote[/b] ]but it's ok if cons do it but not for dems right? Â and why would tehy want to be 'friends'? Dems are evil!!! So, no. Â I think they want to be "friendly" to get favors done. Edit: My avatar is too cool.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Homefry 0 Posted January 23, 2005 Quote[/b] ]TINSTAAFL - There is no such thing as a free lunch.why would big corporations make donations to fund the ceremonies? Special Interest Groups? To get friendly with TBA. If you had the cash, you could of done the same thing. Both parties do it. but it's ok if cons do it but not for dems right? I don't think anyone said that, well except for you.... please don't put words into people's mouths... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted January 24, 2005 Quote[/b] ]I don't think anyone said that, well except for you.... please don't put words into people's mouths... It's been implied many times, especially now that the cons have won a majority. Behaviour that was despised when the Dems were around and that the Repubs cried against, is no common for the Repubs. Absolute power.... Quote[/b] ]I think they want to be "friendly" to get favors done. No. They want to be obstructionist without being seen as obstructionist. They want to stick by their ideals make noise and then sit back for when the Repubs implode so they can say "We weren't in power". Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Acecombat 0 Posted January 24, 2005 Anyone seen this yet: http://movies.yahoo.com/movies/feature/jibjabinaugural.html Sorry if its posted before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
